Rsuggestions for a smallish 150 lens

[Bernice Loui]

Are modern lenses actually "shaper" or just higher contrast?

About 20 years ago when making images with many, many boxes of Agfa chrome RS100 in 13x18, I got tired of the high contrast modern plasmant look and ditch all of them and completely switched to older designs that were equally sharp in resolution but had far better contrast range and separation. It does come down to personal preference more than just the design of the lens.

A good lens shade does make a difference in contrast and flare control. Multi coated or not any lens can be made to flare severely, dependent on how it is used.

While there is a matter of personal preference to this, don't simply believe newer or most modern is always better. There are a lot of factors that figure into the choice of optics and it goes far beyond "sharpness".

The question of sharpness also depends on the f number used. A smaller aperture is not always better, there is usually an optimum for a specific image in mind. Know that using apertures smaller than f32 is going to significantly reduce resolution regardless of the lens design due to diffraction. The resulting resolution is a combination of film/film flatness/camera alignment/lens performance and a host of other factors.

Then we have out of focus rendition which varies greatly for a given lens design.

Know how best to use the tools for a given image in mind.


Bernice

[E. von Hoegh]

For critical use like big enlargements or use with roll film backs, most more modern lenses are in fact noticably sharper than Symmar S or the old dagors. G-Claron has a nice combination of tiny size and excellent optics, but is not a bright, so might be a little slower to focus. Fuji W's are well priced on the used market and fairly amazing in the recent multicoated versions. You've also got the upgraded
Schneiders and Apo-Sironar S lenses (already mentioned). The dagors are prized for a somewhat different reason, a kinda nuanced look due to only four air/glass interfaces. I think every single lens
I now own is sharper than the Symmar S I started with way back when - but that doesn't mean it was
a slouch by any means! I sold it only because it had served me faithfully thru all kinds of harsh terrain
and simply got worn out.

Drew, I use a convertible Symmar on 4x5 and 6x7 rollfilm. It and a 6" Dagor are about neck and neck for sharpness, that is, excellent. I couldn't see any significant difference between it and a Symmar-S (which wasn't cammed for my Linhof) so traded off the -S version. The main difference between the latest versions and the -S is in chromatic correction, and appears mainly toward the edges. So the difference is there.

But my point for the OP is that one should check things like GG registration, focussing technique, enlarger alignment and so on before condemning any lens. I've made some 24" x 30" prints from 4x5 with my old lenses, and they do the job quite well - nobody would look at the prints and say "that lens isn't sharp".

[Fotoguy20d]

I have a Symmar S, G-Claron and a slightly battered Fujinon (newer version) in that focal length. The G Claron is nice for being able to fold up inside a Toyo 45CF (I havent tried with the other two but I dont think they'd make it. I havent shot with the Fujinon (got it very cheap on ebay and figured it was worth the cost just for the shutter) but the G-Claron is sharper, and I think has very slightly better color rendition, than the Symmar. The loss of speed with it doesnt both me (much).

Dan

[Bernice Loui]

+1

It is very possible the lens in question is a dud.. This has happened to me more than once over the years.

Regardless, all the other factors as mention must be checked before ditching the lens in question as it is so easy have a problem else where and blame the lens.


Bernice

Drew, I use a convertible Symmar on 4x5 and 6x7 rollfilm. It and a 6" Dagor are about neck and neck for sharpness, that is, excellent. I couldn't see any significant difference between it and a Symmar-S (which wasn't cammed for my Linhof) so traded off the -S version. The main difference between the latest versions and the -S is in chromatic correction, and appears mainly toward the edges. So the difference is there.

But my point for the OP is that one should check things like GG registration, focussing technique, enlarger alignment and so on before condemning any lens. I've made some 24" x 30" prints from 4x5 with my old lenses, and they do the job quite well - nobody would look at the prints and say "that lens isn't sharp".

[Drew Wiley]

Per my remarks, I wasn't guessing whatsoever. General taking lenses have improved with respect to
both sharpness and coating, and apo-ness in recent decades (though there are a few exceptions, including some remarkable process lenses from the era, as well as the color purity of the last dagors). I can easily detect the difference in my own work. But nonetheless, if I took one of my vintage big Ciba prints made with the Symmar S using old-school Ektachrome 64 4x5 film, and my old Componon S enlarging lens, it would still look crisp to the public - sharper in fact than these new inkjet atrocities
people are getting accustomed to. But put it side by side with what I can do now, and the difference
would be obvious - better & bigger film, better taking lenses, better enlarging lenses, better technique.

[Kevin Crisp]

I am not aware of any evidence that 'general taking lenses' have improved in sharpness since the 1980's. And I have to say the same about coating improvements. My first my set of lenses for 4X5's were Symmar-S (MC) lenses (sadly, all stolen) and they were tremendously sharp. What 'modern' lens has coating better than a Schneider 30 year old MC?

If you shoot a good sample 1950's Symmar convertible (without issues like fogging) against an APO version, no difference in sharpness is apparent even in huge enlargements. The more modern lens is slightly more contrasty, but the difference is slight if you control the other variables.

The -S Symmar was and is a great lens. If the user finds it insufficiently sharp, it is either a dud sample or something else is wrong.

[Drew Wiley]

Here are some of the lens series I now use, all of which are sharper, more contrasty, and more "apo"
than the old Symmar S series : G-Claron, Fujinon A, Fujinon C, Nikkor M. In addition, I sometimes use Fujinon W's that are superior in every respect. People used to comment how crisp my prints were;
but now they look so-so to me. When I switched from a 210 Symmar S to a 250/6.7 Fuji w, the improvement was immediately apparent. Then the 250 G-Claron and 240 Fuji A turned out to be even
sharper (4x5 - 8x10 is a litte different subject). My proof: my eyes, my prints, what really counts! But the Symmar S is still a fine lens to acquire on the used market, esp for a beginner looking for quality at bargain pricing. The acid test is trying to enlarge itty-bitty 6x9 negs and make them look and feel
as if they were taken with LF sheet film - no way I'd choose the Symmar S for that kind of use.

[Kevin Crisp]

If your proof is your eyes then you're all set. But when lenses that are decades old are cited as proof of significant recent improvement I think your argument has been rather seriously undermined. I think sample to sample variation will invalidate these anecdotal conclusions.

[Hollis]

Thanks for all the info that helps me out a bit. I think. I'm thinking that I either have a less than stellar copy of a lens or I'm overly picky, the latter being the more likely. As for shooting at smaller apertures, I don't think I've been above f16 on this lens ever. I shoot everyday people (not models) outdoors in natural light so, speed is critical for me (both in shutter speed, lens speed and setup for my gear) so, I don't really have the luxury of taking the time to attach a lens hood or mess with filters (haven't used one in years and years actually) or even use a dark cloth - it's all very run and gun and would probably make most of you cringe but my technique is what it is for better or worse. You don't get to the point of shooting 50 sheets in 15 minutes when you are constantly fidgeting with gadgets and things. Thanks again!

[vinny]

I had a new 150 symmar-s just before they switched to the current L series. It wasn't very sharp right out of the box. I now have fujinon w's and a 135mm sironar-s. They are sharper and the sironar-s is sharper than the nikkor i had as well and visible on the film, before enlargement. I wouldn't have sold the others which where much less expensive.